“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Why has Trump Not Removed all Obama Holdovers?

ICE agents rebel, say Trump ‘betrayed’ them by leaving Obama’s people in place

Officers in Philadelphia told to remove body armor to avoid offending illegals during arrest

The country’s immigration enforcement officers launched a website Tuesday demanding President Trump do more to clean up their agency, saying he’s left the Obama team in place and it’s stymieing his goal of enforcing the laws on the books.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervisors in Philadelphia banned officers from wearing bullet proof vests during an operation in the dangerous “badlands” section in the city’s north, for fear of offending the immigrant community, the new website,, charges.

Meanwhile officers in one Utah city are required to give city officials seven days’ heads-up before arresting anyone — and by the time they go in, the migrants they’re targeting seem to have gotten a heads-up and taken off, the website says.
Compiled by the National ICE Council, which represents ICE officers, the website is part whistleblower and part primal scream for Mr. Trump to pay attention to a group of people who were among his staunchest backers during last year’s campaign.

“ICE Officers grudgingly admit that the only President they ever endorsed hasn’t kept his word, and many officers now feel betrayed,” the officers say on the new website.

ICE Council President Chris Crane, in an open letter to Mr. Trump linked on the new website, says he finds himself regularly having to defend the president to ICE officers who backed Mr. Trump during the campaign but now feel “stab[bed] in the back” by the administration.

Mr. Crane said he gives Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt, but said those around the president — who he doesn’t name — appear to be trying to shield him from hearing about the continued struggles at ICE.

“While officers view the President’s position on enforcement as courageous, the Trump administration has left all of the Obama managers and leadership in place, a group that ICE Officers know after the last eight years to be completely incompetent, corrupt and anti-enforcement,” Mr. Crane wrote.

“While President Trump did create an uptick in morale at ICE through his support of enforcement operations, tensions are on the rise between Trump’s army of Obama holdovers and boots on the ground officers in the field, as behind the scenes Obama holdovers continue to undermine law enforcement operations and wage war against their own law enforcement officers.”

ICE was among the most embattled agencies in the last administration, with deportation officers saying they signed up to enforce immigration laws, only to have Obama officials put severe restrictions on when and how they could carry out their duties.

More than 80 percent of illegal immigrants were put off limits for deportation under the last administration.

When the Trump administration took over officials lifted the restrictions, saying that most illegal immigrants could once again be deported — though leaving in place the directive that criminals, national security threats and repeat-immigration violators be given top priority.

Numbers for fiscal year 2017 are still pending, so it’s unclear how much of a change the new policy has made.

Mr. Crane, though, said more needs to be done.

The new website invites tips from Homeland Security employees who see malfeasance at the department, or who believe it’s falling short on its mission to protect the country’s borders and interior.

One early posting reports on as many as 500 ICE supervisors who the council says are using official vehicles for their own personal travel, each “gouging American taxpayers for approximately $5,000 annually in free fuel alone,” and on allegations of sexual harassment.

Yet another tip reports on “secret orders” the council says have been given to officers in Utah to alert Park City before they attempt any arrests in the city. The officers say that they have to wait as long as a week before attempting the arrests — and by the time they go after their targets, they appear to have been alerted and fled.

Perhaps the most shocking, though, is the report out of Philadelphia that supervisors told officers to remove their bullet proof vests before attempting to make an arrest in the city.

The vests contain the officers’ markings identifying them as police, so without the vests they had nothing visible to show they were law enforcement. Neighbors ended up calling city police to report the men as intruders.

The website said the supervisors should have been fired, and said Mr. Trump should personally issue a directive ordering discipline for any ICE supervisor who demands officers remove their body armor.

“Our own supervisors would rather see the bodies of their own dead officers full of bullet holes than offend an illegal alien,” said Officer Gabriel Cimino, president of the local union chapter. “This is the absolute madness that our officers in the field are dealing with every day. Will an officer have to die before President Trump helps us restore order to this agency?”


  1. Move all the SES to Rampart, Alaska.


      Population 24 at the last census.

    2. 24 people at the 2010 census.

      The census of 2000 showed 45 people.

      Rampart has been experiencing tough times.

      89% of the folks are Native Americans. 6% white. The rest are 'others'.


  2. Why has Trump Not Removed all Obama Holdovers?

    Because he is incompetent.
    Having no governing experience, he has no experience governing.

    The Celebrity Apprentice does not know how to do the job.
    Mr Trump does not, really, even understand what the job of the President etails.
    He'd be fired, if he was on his own TV reality show.

  3. Why has Trump not removed Jeff Sessions?

    Rep. Jordan - facts

    Sessions: Bullshit

    1. Sessions vows quick decision on possible Clinton prosecutor

      I guess I'll await his decision.

  4. .

    Why has Trump Not Removed all Obama Holdovers?

    He is enamored with all the perks of office but rejects any of the responsibility of it. He is of the 'So let it be written, so let it be done' school of management. It meshes with his propensity to demand all the glory when things go right and blame someone else when things go wrong.


  5. President Trump on Tuesday mistakenly claimed that Air Force One under former President Barack Obama “never got to land” in the Philippines, a claim he made while touting “a very strong relationship” with the Southeast Asian nation.


    Obama had visited the Philippines on several trips earlier in his presidency, and even signed an enhanced defense cooperation agreement with the country in 2014.

    Trump during his remarks to reporters on Tuesday emphasized that the United States’ relationship with the Philippines is “probably better than ever before.”

    1. He misspoke.

      He meant to say "...under President Duarte"

    2. The guy's 71 years old!

  6. The heated language of Trump’s presidential campaign is affecting American Muslims, who find themselves increasingly on the receiving end of hate crimes. A year into Trump’s presidency, how will his words and decisions affect the country’s Islamic minority? We ask Trita Parsi, former unofficial Obama administration’s adviser and head of the National American Iranian Council.

    SophieShevardnadze: Trita Parsi, welcome to the show, it’s great to have you on our program.

    TritaParsi: Thank you for having me.

    SS: So, it’s been a year since Donald Trump was elected. During his campaign, he made quite a lot of anti-Islam comments. But so far, none of these have really been acted on. Was it all just a ploy to fire up his base or does he really hold some kind of grudge against Muslims?

    TP: I think it’s incorrect to say that it’s not been acted upon, because it only took him about roughly ten days to put into place the first Muslim ban, which ended up, of course, being deemed unconstitutional in the court. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, but then Donald Trump himself pulled it and presented a new version of that ban which is also now being blocked and will probably end up going to the Supreme Court.


    SS: Yes, we’re going to talk in detail about the Iran deal a bit later, but before that, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has noted an almost a 100 % increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the first half of 2017, compared to 2016. Why is this happening?

    TP: Well, I think it’s quite clear that this is not something that is coming from the bottom up but is actually being promoted from the top. Even during the Bush era, after 9/11 there was an increase in anti-Muslim hate crime, but it didn’t actually really start to rise up until during the Obama years, when you had a Republican party, that was very much using the language of islamophobia.


    SS: But, obviously, a lot of people accuse Trump of spurring anti-Muslim sentiment across the country, but a search from the Pew Research Center shows that a growing number of Americans are actually becoming more sympathetic towards Muslims. Is Muslim discrimination a part of the U.S. mainstream media’s hysteria or is Trump’s anti-Islam rhetoric is simply, I don’t know, maybe having a reverse effect?

    TP: I think it is having a reverse effect, because a lot of people starting to see that discrimination against Muslims in the U.S., or people of Middle-Eastern background, a lot of people that are being discriminated against are actually not Muslims, they’re being perceived to the Middle-Easterners and Muslims. There’re a lot of people who are starting to realize that there’s no difference from the discrimination that earlier and continuously is taking place against African-American community or other communities, and as a result, it should be opposed in that same way.

    Adviser to Obama

  7. Say what you will but the economy really is beginning to do better.

    1. The Donald put an end to ISIS.

      He let the Generals make the decision on the ground, he not making them from the White House, he let the troops shoot first not having to wait until shot at, then firing back...

    2. He pisses of the left, and morons of all stripes, and the nation's nitwits, too.

      I find it fun to watch.

      Never in my wildest dreams did I ever ever dream I would see thousands upon thousands of women marching around like total fools with pussy caps on their heads !

    3. He's got Quirk by the balls, and makes him scream.

      That, too, is a gas....

    4. MAGA !

      He stole an old slogan and everyone thinks of it as The Donald's own creation.

      He got an excellent man appointed to The Supreme Court.

    5. By the way, Kim Fatso III was very quiet all during The Donald's long trip to the East.

      The Chinese had obviously told Kim to shut his pie hole.

    6. The stock market is the highest it's ever been.

      Even the value of Magic 8-Ball Prediction Services, LLC has bloomed !

    7. This might be the time to finally go public with the Prediction Services, Quirk.

  8. Rush: Roy Moore was a Democrat when he was allegedly chasing teenaged girls, you know

    ALLAHPUNDIT Nov 14, 2017 6:01 PM


    He got religion, Republicanism, and restraint.

    Has been married 30 some years, he and his wife have an adopted daughter too.....

    1. .

      Rush: Roy Moore was a Democrat when he was allegedly chasing teenaged girls, you know

      That tells you all you need to know about Rush. I doubt he's an idiot but he surely is a fool. Even he can't be stupid enough to believe what he implies, yet he says it anyway. He knows the dittoheads and other morons that listen to him are just stupid enough to believe it. It's the first law of the snake oil salesman, know you audience.


  9. Almost half of over-65s in England are taking at least five different drugs a day, a Cambridge University study has found.

    The figure has risen from just 12 per cent 20 years ago, while the proportion taking no pills at all dropped from around 20 per cent in the late 1990s to just seven per cent today.


    A 2015 study in Spain found those taking six medicines or more a day were nearly three times as likely to die prematurely than those on no drugs at all.

    Even taking up to five a day increased the dangers by an estimated 47 per cent, researchers warned.

  10. TRUTH

    November 14, 2017
    Who planted the Roy Moore story on Washington Post reporters?
    By Jack Hellner

    I have no idea whether the stories about Roy Moore are true or not, but neither do the Washington Post reporters and all the other reporters who just repeat the unverified story with no investigation. Forty-year-old allegations are especially hard to disprove.

    I find it odd that this story came up after the primary and after decades of service by Roy Moore. Why did the Washington Post reporters wait until after no one else could be put on the ballot to run a 40-year-old story? Isn't it also strange that a supposed sexual predator would have all of a sudden quit going after young girls 40 years ago? Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Bill Clinton never quit. Clinton couldn't control himself even when he was in the White House.

    Who gave the reporters the story? They certainly didn't come up with the story on their own, and the women didn't come to them, so how did they get it? Did the Democratic National Committee funnel money to a law firm so it could pay someone like Fusion GPS to come up with this?

    We know from DNC emails last year that there was a stable of reporters Democrats could plant stories with and that they would print the stories with few questions asked. We also know from Ben Rhodes at the White House that the Obama administration could plant false stories on the Iran deal with reporters that they would run with no questions asked. So who planted the story?

    The Roy Moore story has a familiar ring and methodology to it.

    In 2004, Dan Rather ran the story with forged documents trying to take out Bush. Print and network reporters did not call him out. Some people on the internet did.

    In 2008, the New York Times endorsed McCain in the primary. After Romney was taken out, the Times ran a false front-page story on an old McCain affair with a lobbyist. Why would the NYT endorse McCain when it had this story, and why did it wait until after McCain was the nominee to try to take him out with a false story? My guess is that the Times knew that McCain was easier to beat than Romney.

    In 2012, Harry Reid stood on the Senate floor and lied that Romney had not paid taxes for ten years. Instead of reporters making Reid prove that, they went after Romney. After the election, Reid was asked if he felt bad about lying. He said, We won, didn't we? Obviously, truth and integrity were never important; winning was. Reporters also came up with an almost fifty-year-old story where Romney supposedly bullied a kid in high school and cut his hair.

    In 2016 is the most egregious example of all. The DNC, Hillary, and Obama funneled over $12 million to a law firm (to hide the payment) so the law firm could pay Fusion to create a fictional story about Trump. This fictional story has been used as an excuse to spy, unmask, endlessly investigate, and continually report the fictional collusion story.

    1. Instead of reporting much on the dangerous Russia uranium story with massive kickbacks and collusion, on the despicable creation of the dossier, on Hillary's rigging of elections and violating campaign laws, the networks and print reporters have wall-to-wall coverage of an unverified story to take out a Republican.

      In summary, reporters and other Democrats show they don't care much about the nation's security or laws, or they never would have supported Hillary. They don't care about equal justice, or they would never have supported Hillary. They don't care about an independent Justice Department, or they would have gone after FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch for their pretend investigation of Hillary. They don't care about illegal spying as long as it is spying on people associated with Trump. They don't care about Russia, or they would be all over the Russia uranium deal. They don't care about campaign finance rules or spending limits, or they would go after Hillary and the DNC for the obvious violations in 2015 and 2016. They don't care about the rigging of elections. And they certainly don't care much about the abuse of women, or they would never have advocated putting Bill and Hillary back in the White House.

      Reporters and other Democrats care about one thing and one thing alone, and that is the defeat of Republicans. It really does not matter what they have to do to achieve that. They willingly will destroy anyone who gets in their way, and that is a true shame. It is a shame that so many Republicans go along. The swamp is deep.

    2. Lies, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, you are peddling lies ...
      ... because ...
      You are a liar

    3. You are back, War Criminal, Dead Beat Dad, Jew hater, and Professional Liar.

      Go suck a tail pipe.

      Most here would be pleased, or at least certainly relieved.

      At the very least, stay quietly in your mom's basement.

  11. AccuWeather will continue to provide updates on the weather for Thanksgiving Day, as well as conditions expected for travel prior to and after the holiday.

    In the meantime, winter is targeting areas of the Midwest and interior Northeast for an early start. Now is the time to make sure you, your vehicle and home are set up to handle the inevitable in the days and weeks ahead.

    Have shovels, ice melting compounds and warm outerwear on hand.

    1. I bought a new pair of winter shoes.

    2. For winter coats go to:

      Duluth Trading Company


      Only $399.50

    4. Easily conforms to and covers an underneath bullet proof vest for worry free Urban Northeastern USA winter living.

      Pockets fully capable of handling concealed handguns.

      * Concealed Weapons Permit Holders Only

  12. However, public hospitals and private clinics in China continue to offer so-called “conversion therapy,” which aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, based on the false assumption that homosexuality is a disorder that needs to be remedied. Despite a legal framework that requires that the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders comply with diagnostic standards and standards on the categorizations of mental disorders, Chinese authorities have not taken the necessary steps to stop public hospitals or private clinics from offering conversion therapy.


    Chinese authorities should immediately take steps to ensure that its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is supported by meaningful protections. They should prohibit the forced admission of individuals without mental disease or disorder into psychiatric facilities, and establish disciplinary and accountability mechanisms to address abusive and unethical medical and psychiatric practices.

    Public and private health facilities should not be permitted to provide treatments that are ineffective, unethical, and harmful, including conversion therapy. As homosexuality is not an illness, there is no need for a cure.

    Parents' Happiness

    1. No Commie Conversion Therapy availble in China.


    2. Though there are Re-education Camps available for free thinkers.

  13. On Wednesday, SpaceX will launch a secret mission to space.

    The Elon Musk-founded spaceflight company is expected to launch a secret government payload known only as Zuma atop a Falcon 9 rocket at around 8 p.m. ET on Wednesday.


    Zuma calls to mind two missions launched in 2009 and 2014, according to industry publication Spaceflight Now. Those missions, called PAN and CLIO, were also secret and unclaimed by any government entity.

    According to documents obtained by The Intercept, the PAN mission was used to listen in on conversations routed through communications satellites above the Middle East, via the National Security Agency.

  14. One Aussie's Point Of View

    North Korea: The Ethics of a U.S. Military Strike
    By Crispin Rovere
    November 14, 2017

    North Korea: The Ethics of a U.S. Military StrikeCreative Commons - Flickr user (stephan)

    As part of a series on North Korea, I have made the strategic case for war to prevent Pyongyang’s development of a nuclear-tipped ICBM, interrogated the arguments through debate, and explained why a conflict is becoming inevitable. This piece provides a refutation of the moral arguments made against a U.S. military strike. A further article will outline what victory in another Korean war looks like and some principles for destroying North Korea’s armed forces.

    On pre-emption vs. prevention

    One common argument made against a military strike on North Korea is that it would be a preventive ‘war of choice’ and therefore unethical.

    To assess this, we must first determine if a disarming military strike on North Korea would be preventive in nature, and if so, whether this is morally disqualifying.

    Anticipatory self-defense (pre-emption) is permissible when an attack is imminent. Preventive war is a where a military strike aims to neutralize a threat that is not immediate but could become so in the future.

    Preventive war was severely discredited after the second Iraq war, and rightly so. The Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs proved completely false. Even had these weapons existed, there is scant evidence that Saddam Hussein would have attacked the United States or its allies or supplied WMDs to non-state actors. Moreover, the military option was chosen – invasion of Iraq – was devoid of strategic logic or a real plan for post-war stabilization and reconstruction. When it comes to questions of war and peace, the failure to think is a moral as well intellectual failing.

    North Korea’s circumstances today are markedly different to those of Iraq in 2003. North Korea has violated innumerate UNSC resolutions and openly progressed its nuclear weapons program despite universal condemnation. There is no ambiguity as to the regime’s nuclear ambition or the concrete advances being made towards its objective.

    Given that North Korea routinely threatens both the United States and its allies with nuclear attack, a strict interpretation of pre-emptive war is too restrictive. It is an unreasonable threshold for an ICBM to literally be on the launch pad for an anticipatory strike to be permissible. Some might argue that even this does not qualify, for without an accompanying declaration of hostile intent a missile launch could be a test and not an attack. According to a strict interpretation of pre-emptive strike, a launched ICBM might have to be in-flight and tracking towards the United States or an ally to trigger anticipatory self-defense provisions.

    Since North Korea is openly threatening international peace and security, the burden is on Pyongyang to prove that its nuclear weapons program poses no threat to America or its allies. North Korea has manifestly failed to do this, and therefore any attack on its nuclear program by the United States qualifies as anticipatory self-defense – regardless of whether the strike is to defend against an imminent threat or a future one.

    1. Overruling allies

      Another argument made is that conducting a military strike on North Korea without the permission of regional allies would be unethical, especially given the catastrophic impact another Korean war could have on nations like South Korea.

      South Korea is a major stakeholder, one that rejects a U.S. military strike on North Korea. Hundreds of thousands of South Koreans could perish in a new Korean war, and the burden of incorporating a collapsed North Korea into a unified peninsula falls primarily on Seoul.

      The question is whether these interests confer a moral veto against an American military strike.

      The answer is no. All military alliances confer two risks on each party – abandonment, and entrapment. Abandonment means that, despite pledges, an ally fails to fulfill their obligations for support in the event of a military attack. Entrapment means being dragged into a conflict contrary to one’s interests owing to the actions or circumstances of an ally. These risks always exist together, although emphasis is usually on the one at a given time.

      For decades it has been South Korea’s fear of abandonment that governed the alliance dynamic. This is why tens of thousands of U.S. troops were stationed along the DMZ despite no operational rationale underpinning their deployment. The purpose was to ensure that, should North Korea attack, U.S. soldiers would be among the first to die thereby acting as a ‘tripwire’ for America’s commitment to the fight. Meanwhile, America has consistently spent more on defense as a percentage of GDP compared to their frontline ally. In short, the costs of the alliance have been borne by the larger party – South Korea has reaped the benefits.

      The United States has selflessly underwritten South Korea’s independence without North Korea posing a direct threat to its own territory. While North Korea was unable to threaten vital American interests, it was reasonable for South Korea to have a decisive injunction against preventive military action given it was the only one at risk.

      This situation is now changed. With North Korea developing the ability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, one consequence is that South Korea is now at risk of alliance entrapment. After having sought and received assurances for its own security over decades, South Korea cannot now assert a veto over how the United States chooses to defend its own territory and populace. Entrapment was always a risk in the ROK-America alliance; a risk historically borne by the United States and in fact realized in the first Korean War.

    2. South Korea has a right to argue its position in Washington, and the Trump administration is obligated to give a proper hearing and mitigate risks to its ally wherever feasible. In the final analysis, however, there is no moral obligation on the part of a U.S. president to heed South Korea’s protests should the White House apprehend an unacceptable threat to the United States.

      North Korea’s regime

      The nature of the North Korean regime cannot be ignored. Taking preventive military options ‘off the table’ equals de facto acceptance of the state-orchestrated mass atrocities perpetrated by the regime against its own people, in perpetuity.

      As with the Soviet Union, tolerance of a regime that can inflict unacceptable harm with nuclear weapons may be a reality. It is not unethical to prioritize national survival over combating foreign human rights abuses. Nevertheless, it is unethical to knowingly allow that end state to arise. Once North Korea possesses several hundred nuclear-tipped ICBMs it will be impossible for the U.S. to intervene without committing national suicide. This circumstance is not just limited to internal atrocities within North Korea but also constrains America from protecting allies against large-scale conventional attack.

      The scale of North Korea’s human rights abuses was articulated by President Trump during his recent speech in Seoul. His remarks were drawn right out of the United Nations investigation into North Korea’s human rights abuses. This 2013 UN Report found that “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

      North Korean security forces are overseeing widespread discrimination, arbitrary detention, torture, execution and prison camps, abductions, and crimes against humanity. According to the UN Report these crimes include, but are not limited to:

      extermination, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.

      North Korea’s current leader is an exemplar of sadist depravity, including towards members of his own family. Kim Jong-un publicly purged then executed his uncle, before assassinating his half-brother with VX nerve agent at a busy international airport.

      As a staunch foreign policy realist, I view humanitarian intervention success stories as sketchy at best and therefore advocate the narrowest possible interpretation of the so-called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine. Nevertheless, it is not possible to argue that preventive war against North Korea is immoral without at the same time accepting that the regime’s human rights abuses do not justify conflict either. It is unquestionably the case that if the peninsula were forcibly united under Seoul, these state-orchestrated atrocities would immediately cease.

      On one level, war is always immoral. It involves industrialized murder perpetrated by an organized force against fellow human beings. Another Korean war would be horrendously violent, with American forces having to destroy a numerous and motivated enemy. However, the specific ethical arguments made against a military strike fail in critical respects. In sum, a U.S. military strike aimed at neutralizing the threat of a nuclear-tipped ICBM is ethically justified in addition to being strategically correct.

      Crispin Rovere is a member of the Australian Labor Party and previous convenor of the ACT ALP International Affairs Policy Committee.

    3. .

      I love it, an Australian advising the US to attack NK. This guy sounds a lot like Bob, always coming up with places around the world we can send our troops to be killed.


    4. Now, now, now....all I've really said is we ought to help the Kurds, and perhaps send some pacification troops to Detroit.

      I have no idea how to handle N. Korea.

      The Aussie is making a reasoned argument, rather than an emotional one, in case you didn't notice.

    5. When a whole spectrum of political opinion from Chuckie Schumer to John McCain to yours truly considers the Kurds worth helping maybe you should reconsider your knee jerk reactions.

      I worry your jerking knees might sometime jerk up into your jaw and knock you unconscious, conk konk.

      Always looking out for you....

    6. Quirk, you may have missed this -

      One Aussie's Point Of View

      One of the hazards of your speed reading habit is you only comprehend about 10% of what you have 'read'.

      We here have all observed you doing this again, and again.

  15. Po' ol' Judge Roy Moore may have just been born in the wrong place and wrong time.

    Islam in France: France Debates Dropping Minimum Legal Age for Sexual Consent to

    13 ?

    When the muzzies finally get their full way the age will be 9.

    1. .

      More bullshit from Geller and the Gellerettes.


    2. What's bullshit about that article ?

      It's in the nature of a report on a case in France and on a social/political debate taking place in France because of it, and cases like it.

    3. .

      As to Geller,

      Islam in France: France Debates Dropping Minimum Legal Age for Sexual Consent to

      says it all. She' offers up the perverse view that this clown having charges dropped against him is somehow Islam's fault instead of the a-hole's on the Assize Court who rendered that verdict. She has nothing to back up that claim but like Limbaugh in a previous comment by you she knows her audience and feeds them the garbage they crave.

      As to the Gellerettes (in this case you),

      Po' ol' Judge Roy Moore may have just been born in the wrong place and wrong time.

      says it all.

      You've been making up excuses for this jack-hole since this story came up.


  16. China urged to stop using electroshock therapy to 'convert' gays....DRUDGE

    Flying over the cuckoo's nest.

  17. I'm for putting a Special Prosecutor on Hillary's fat arse.

    I read somewhere she was behind the 'Rooskie Dossier' business.

    Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier ...
    Oct 24, 2017 - Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier ... The Washington Post's Adam Entous looks at the role that Hillary Clinton's .... to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele's work, ...
    The infamous Trump/Russia dossier was funded in part by Hillary - Vox

    Oct 24, 2017 - The infamous Trump/Russia dossier was funded in part by Hillary ... to the question of just who paid for the research behind the dossier.
    Clinton: There Is A Difference Between Paying For Trump Dossier And ...
    Nov 2, 2017 - Now, people say, 'Hillary, is there a difference between your team paying for ... dossier and Trump's ties to Russia.

    Russia probe: Are Trump Tower meeting and Trump dossier ...

    Nov 3, 2017 - WASHINGTON — Recent revelations that money from Hillary ... helped pay for a dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia have ...
    Clinton, Trump and the Russia dossier: What you need to know | TheHill

    Oct 28, 2017 - The revelation that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic ... on the veracity and motivation behind the dossier's creation and suggested ...
    Hillary Clinton Defends Funding Trump-Russia Dossier: 'Of Course' It's ...

    Nov 1, 2017 - The 2016 presidential candidate pushed back hard on the right-wing talking point that she's guilty of the 'real collusion' on 'The Daily Show.'
    Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump ...

    Oct 24, 2017 - A lawyer for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee funded ... and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier.
    Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund Trump dossier research, report ...

    Oct 25, 2017 - The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National ... dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.
    Trump-Russia dossier 'funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential ... › News › World › Americas › US politics

    Oct 25, 2017 - Trump-Russia dossier 'funded by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and .... Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth.

    1. Lock Hillary Up

      Strassel: Fusion GPS 'Steele Dossier' A Political Dirty Trick For The Ages
      Posted By Tim Hains
      On Date November 14, 2017

      'Wall Street Journal' columnist Kimberley Strassel makes the case to Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson that the Steele dossier, which was funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign to smear President Trump, is one of history's most outrageous political tricks.

      "We do a disservice when we even refer to it as a 'Dossier,'" she explained. "That gives it too much mystique. This is an oppo research document of lower quality than even oppo research documents."

      "All campaigns do this, but usually you dig up a driving under the influence conviction, or you didn't pay your taxes one year, you plant it in the press to make the candidate look bad. This is a document based on unnamed, anonymous Russian sources, apparently. They're never been proven, a lot of them have been disproven," Strassel continued. "But here's where they have been particularly clever: They didn't give it to the press, they sent it to the FBI and then they briefed the press, and then the press was able to claim that this was intelligence that the FBI possessed, which gave it some air of credibility."

      Host Tucker Carlson asks: "So, this bundle of opposition research changed American political history -- and not in the ways that it normally would. You're saying that this really is responsible for this chain reaction that has paralyzed Washington ever since?"

      "Look at what happened!" Strassel said. "The Democrats like to say this document wasn't even used during the election: Not true. We know that [Former MI-6 Russia desk leader] Christopher Steele, who put this document together has testified in court documents that he briefed the press in September [2016]. Yahoo News came out with a huge story saying the FBI was in possession of 'intelligence' showing potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government -- the headlines were dominated by this. And the question that we still have yet to know: We know the FBI relied on this in some regard but did this document actually inspire the FBI to end up wiretapping a political campaign? Which is no small deal, by the way."

      "The FBI has been playing hardball about letting House investigators see their file," Strassel explained. "Supposedly they've agreed to let them in, started to make some things available to House investigators, but all of this should be -- The thing that some people don't understand, is that when you're dealing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), it is not like you put in a request and they say no, it is a back and forth discussion."

      "Somewhere in the FBI is a big file that explains exactly what the FBI was putting forward to the court as justification to go ahead with the tapping of Carter Page or Paul Manafort."

      "The House is having more and more trouble with its enforcement authority [over the FBI], and... the Justice Department said sorry, we're not complying with your subpoena for a while. They now appear to be putting some things out, but from what I understand, not everything they need to be putting out," Strassel said. "Here's the funny thing: Every time they have an excuse for not giving it, they say it is because of special counsel Mueller. Well, if special counsel Mueller is doing this entirely because the FBI misused a dossier, all the more reason for House investigators to be looking into how this started."

    2. More lies from Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      One wishes he would stop lying to US.

  18. Venezuela Goes Bust

    Another lesson in the price of lending to a socialist regime.

    Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, Nov. 12. PHOTO: MIRAFLORES PALACE/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS
    By The Editorial Board
    Nov. 14, 2017 6:48 p.m. ET

    Milton Friedman once joked that if you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert in five years there would be a shortage of sand. He could have been talking about Venezuela and its oil wealth. But it is no joke.

    On Monday Caracas missed interest payments due on two government bonds and one bond issued by the state-owned oil monopoly known by its Spanish initials PdVSA. Venezuela owed creditors $280 million, which it couldn’t manage even after a 30-day grace period.

    Venezuela is broke, which takes some doing. For much of the second half of the 20th century, a gusher of oil exports made dollars abundant in Venezuela and the country imported the finest of everything. There were rough patches in the 1980s and 1990s, but by 2001 Venezuela was the richest country in South America.

    Then in 2005 the socialist Hugo Chávez declared that the central bank had “excessive reserves.” He mandated that the executive take the excess from the bank without compensation. Today the central bank has at best $1 billion in reserves.

    Falling oil prices are partly to blame, but the main problem is that chavismo has strangled entrepreneurship. Faced with expropriation, hyperinflation, price controls and rampant corruption, human and monetary capital has fled Venezuela.

    As of Tuesday evening, the Investment Swaps and Derivatives Association still had not declared Venezuela in default. That matters because this will trigger the insurance obligations inherent in the credit default swaps. But S&P Global Ratings declared the country in default Monday. On Tuesday morning the Luxembourg Stock Exchange issued a suspension notice for the bonds with missed payments.

    President Nicolás Maduro has formed a commission to restructure up to $150 billion of the debt and put Vice President Tareck El Aissami —who is under U.S. sanctions for drug trafficking—in charge.....

  19. Clip of the step-son of the latest Judge Moore accuser, Beverly Young Nelson, stating that he doesn't believe her

    When were Yearbooks put out at Christmas time ?


  20. A coup de etat in Zimbabwe

    Mugabe reportedly confined at his residence.

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.


    1. Fox News’s Shepherd Smith debunks his network’s favorite Hillary Clinton ‘scandal,’ infuriates viewers

      Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought go work for CNN or MSNBC.

      Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton


      Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”


      Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

      Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, have been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.

      Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”


      ... Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

      Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid-pro-quo. The accusation first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book Clinton Cash. The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

      He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

      Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

      Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the Secretary of State.

  22. .


    Trump touts a poll that shows more than half the country disapproves of him

    Approval rating polls don’t all measure the same thing. Different polls survey different groups. Some poll all American adults. Others survey only registered voters. Some, like Rasmussen, survey only likely voters. Each of those surveys is instructive, but they measure different things.

    Why? Because the demographics of those groups differ. Likelihood of voting correlates to age and income (if you own your own home, for example, you are more likely to be registered to vote and to know where to vote). Age and income correlate to a greater likelihood of being Republican. So by using a likely-voter pool, you’re using a voter pool that skews more Republican. That’s one big reason Rasmussen polls consistently show Trump doing better than do other polls.
    Compare Rasmussen’s results to the RealClearPolitics average of all recent polls over time. Republicans like Trump more than non-Republicans, and so Rasmussen’s results are pretty consistently higher than the average.


    1. Rasmussen calls itself most accurate pollster of 2016 | TheHill

      Nov 18, 2016 - "The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it," Rasmussen wrote on its website ...
      Rasmussen Reports Calls It Right - Rasmussen Reports™

      Dec 5, 2016 - 1) Our final poll was the closest among all pollsters who correctly ... about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it.
      Our Final 2016 Picks - Rasmussen Reports™

      Nov 19, 2016 - The most accurate poll that surveyed likely voters was the Investor's ... The second most accurate poll according to the report was the national Rasmussen ... many pollsters missing the mark in the 2016 presidential election.

    2. Accuracy counts in polling.

      In the advertising business, not so much.

      In fact, in the advertising business B.S. often is better than accuracy.